Pickford & Co.

[Newbie]

Probably just as surprised as Wynne Baxter and the Detectives were to read Pauls story on the Sunday...

I read from someone, or somewhere, that the police initially didn't believe Pauls story in the newspaper.

Anyone have that information?

[Newbie]

I don't think it likely that he knew them at all.
I was thinking along the lines of Police Benevolent type events, sort of "Widows and Orphans Fund" Christmas Party or the like.
But I don't even know whether "Old Ma Lechmere" collected a widows pension or not.

She was receiving payments from a trust established by her father whose remittance was overseen by officials in Hertfordshire.
Some here have speculated that Lechmere used the name Cross to avoid scandals that might affect the continuance of these payments.

[Newbie]

The first observation I would make is that in suggesting that Lechmere was forced to come forward due to Robert Paul's interview with the press, Stow is just offering a theory.

There's nothing wrong with offering a theory, but his followers forget this and insist that this is what happened. In reality, we have no direct information about how, when, or why Cross came forward or was traced, whether he read Lloyd's Weekly News, or whether he was summoned to the inquest or whether he just showed up spontaneously, but if that latter I rather think that it would have been a dramatic occurrence and would have been reported, and considering that his Doveton Street address was given at the inquest, he was formally summoned. If not, then Stow's colleague Christer Holmgren would need to explain how the coroner's clerk knew it, since it's his theory that reporter for the Star (who published Lechmere's address) got it from the clerk. Isn't that an internal contradiction in the theory? As I understand Stow, he admits the there is no 'proof' that any of this happened, but he is adamant that it is the natural inference one should draw from the surviving documentation.

A more serious objection is that it is impossible to believe that PC Neil, nor PC Thain nor Inspector Spratling nor Inspector Helson (when they learned of the murder) didn't question or have any curiosity about Mizen's sudden appearance on the scene --on their patch, no less---and what or whom would have brought him there.

For background information, I recommend the following discussion by David Orsam, explaining that a beat constable, except in rare exceptions, was not allowed to leave his beat, and if he did leave his beat, he was supposed to return to it again as soon as possible.

The Conflicts of PC Mizen - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

And yet the events of that morning show that PC Mizen stopped knocking people up (which he was required to do and would be punished for not doing), went to Buck's Row, and even (somewhat amazingly) went and fetched a police ambulance.

Against all rules and regulations, Mizen completely abandoned his beat.

At the end of his shift, Mizen would have reported this to his duty sergeant. And in doing so, he would have to have mentioned the two men who alerted him to the murder in Buck's Row because they were his justification for this infraction. This information would be passed on to Inspector Helson who was in charge of the murder investigation.

If for some strange reason Mizen decided not to report these two men and lie about it, then how was he going to explain his dereliction of duty?

Spratling clearly DID know that Mizen had been at the scene because he mentions him in his report of Friday 31 August, though being an H-Division constable instead of a J-Division constable, Spratling identified him as Smizen instead of Mizen.

Are we supposed to believe that Spratling didn't wonder what brought Mizen to Buck's Row? Or that Inspector Helson didn't also know that Mizen had been at the scene, and despite his many years of experience, didn't question why a PC had abandoned his beat and was at the scene of the murder in J-Division?

It is unfortunate that we do not have enough surviving documentation to know what happened, but since we don't, we need to weigh what is and what is not plausible.

Is Stow's theory plausible? Or would Helson have asked the obvious questions and have soon learned of the existence of Paul and Cross?

We have some evidence and hard rules that aid us in determining when Lechmere would have had to come forward:

#1: Robert Paul was not present on the 2nd day of the inquest on Monday: he came on the following scheduled date.
#2: Investigators do not, out of habit automatically accept a stranger's story in an investigation: some vetting is required.
#3: Paul's story came out on Sunday morning in Lloyd's weekly: time enough for authorities to locate him and hand him a summons later that day if his story was believed. It evidently wasn't because Lechmere had not come forward yet.
#4: PC Mizen showed up on the 2nd day of the inquest, but not PC Thain. PC Mizen's experience Friday morning overlapped with Lechmere's.
#5: Not enough time would have existed, had Lechmere shown up Monday morning, to meet with an investigator,
have the investigator verify his statement, forward the information to the coroner, obtain a summons and inform PC Mizen that he was wanted - at the inquest.

Its a very good bet that Lechmere came forward Sunday afternoon or evening.


As to why he showed up, either side is free to speculate, and both sides do.

[rjpalmer]

We have some evidence and hard rules that aid us in determining when Lechmere would have had to come forward:

#1: Robert Paul was not present on the 2nd day of the inquest on Monday: he came on the following scheduled date.
#2: Investigators do not, out of habit automatically accept a stranger's story in an investigation: some vetting is required.
#3: Paul's story came out on Sunday morning in Lloyd's weekly: time enough for authorities to locate him and hand him a summons later that day if his story was believed. It evidently wasn't because Lechmere had not come forward yet.
#4: PC Mizen showed up on the 2nd day of the inquest, but not PC Thain. PC Mizen's experience Friday morning overlapped with Lechmere's.
#5: Not enough time would have existed, had Lechmere shown up Monday morning, to meet with an investigator,
have the investigator verify his statement, forward the information to the coroner, obtain a summons and inform PC Mizen that he was wanted - at the inquest.

Its a very good bet that Lechmere came forward Sunday afternoon or evening.


As to why he showed up, either side is free to speculate, and both sides do.

Thanks for proving my point. We have no idea when Cross came forward or under what circumstances. It's just guesswork and our own personal interpretations despite the large gaps in our understanding and nearly a complete lack of information.

Much of the above is merely Ed and Christer's speculations about what occurred. The inferences that they have drawn.

It may not have happened that way at all and having recently restudied it after a brief run-in with Ed, I doubt that it did.

Properly considered, there are several mysteries about Robert Paul's appearance before the inquest.

The representative for Lloyd's Weekly News reported some interesting details about what the inquest witnesses were paid, how many days they attended, and how much work they lost.

This is the only source we have for this information, and it reports that Robert Paul attended two days and lost three days of work.

Yet, because Paul only gave evidence on one day, we don't know what other day he was in attendance, but not called. Ed wants Paul to have attended on the final day of the inquest, because it makes his theory work, but there is no evidence that this is what happened, and little or no reason for Paul to have attended unless Wynne Baxter had a habit of wasting money by paying what by now were minor witnesses to attend just to hear his summation.

This leaves open the possibility that Paul was actually at the second day of the inquest but, for whatever reason, was not called to give evidence. Perhaps the police initially gave his name to the coroner and issued a summons, but having growing doubts about his testimony, discreetly asked Baxter not to call him. We don't know.

That Paul missed three days of work suggests he had spent one day down at the station, being grilled by the police. Seeing that he left the scene of what turned out to be a murder, I find this highly plausible.

We don't know when the police yarded Paul out of bed, but it could just as easily have been late on Friday night, August 31. It is only an assumption that it happened after the police read his interview in Lloyd's. Nor do I believe Ed Stow's theory that a reporter for Lloyd's was able to trace Robert Paul within hours and yet it took the police several more days to find him and drag him out of bed. Stow is leaning too heavily on Walter Dew, who didn't work in J-Division, didn't remember Paul's name, and was writing fully 50 years after-the-fact.

In reality, the Victorian police were very skilled at tracing people.

No; we are all indulging in guesswork, but I'm personally convinced something else was going on. I suspect the police initially looked at Paul, and perhaps Cross, more as suspects than as witnesses. Paul, in particularly may have found himself on the hot seat, which is why there was a delay in giving evidence.

[Fiver]

As for his blamelessness, your description makes me wonder. How about Lechmere seeing the two children? That was his responsibility - no?
It wasn't one kid diving in front of his cart, it was a matter of two kids - with one having to dive out of the way.

He had legal counsel, and worked for a large established business; the poor deceased east end kid had no representation.

That impresses people.

The poor deceased kid was not some starving street urchin. He was Walter Williams, Jr, the namesake and only son of jeweler Walter Williams, who was not present, but blamed Cross for his son's death.

But it wasn't a jeweler versus a carman. Three witnesses testified in Charles Cross' defense.

[Fiver]

There were various people, if I remember correctly, stopping pedestrian to see who knew what.
Lech, evaded questions, or was neither approached, nor evinced interest, or went a different route home.
Some have speculated that he chose option three.

"Some have speculated" means nothing.

And the bias in these options is obvious as it ignores the very real possibility that Charles Allen Cross deliberately and voluntarily went to the police or that he got off work later than Robert Paul and there were no reporters still waiting to question passersby by the time Cross walked home.

After Pau gave his story, whether he put 'two and two together' or not, he tried to stay out of the process.
Authorities had to drag him to the inquest.

Feel free to provide evidence to back your claims. Where is there evidence that Cross tried to stay out of the process? Where is the evidence that authorities had to drag Cross to the inquest?

The only one who had to be dragged to the inquest was Robert Paul, by his own admission.

"Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing." - 30 September 1888 Lloyds Weekly News.

[Fiver]

She was receiving payments from a trust established by her father whose remittance was overseen by officials in Hertfordshire.
Some here have speculated that Lechmere used the name Cross to avoid scandals that might affect the continuance of these payments.

"Some have speculated" is still meaningless.

Charles Allen Lechmere finding a body was not a scandal. It could not have possibly been grounds for ending trust payments to his mother. And we have no idea if the trust had already been exhausted - this was 40 years after the trust had been established, and Thomas Roulston was only a butler.

If you want scandals, you need to look at John Allen Lechmere - got a police constable so drunk that the man died, went bankrupt, abandoned his family, shacked up with a teenager.

[rjpalmer]

"Some have speculated" means nothing.

And the bias in these options is obvious as it ignores the very real possibility that Charles Allen Cross deliberately and voluntarily went to the police or that he got off work later than Robert Paul and there were no reporters still waiting to question passersby by the time Cross walked home.

A lot of people assume that this is what happened, and I've speculated along those lines myself, but the representative for Lloyd's only wrote that he spoke to Paul "on his return home."

This could mean that the journalist button-holed every pedestrian walking through Buck's Row that night and found Paul--or, more plausibly perhaps--it means that he had discovered Paul's home address on Foster Street and was waiting on his doorstep: "On his return home."

If the latter, it throws a spanner into Ed Stow's theory that Paul was difficult to trace.

As I see it, Paul worked in the market. On Friday, there would have been talk of the murder, just as there would be on the morning of the Chapman murder, which sent John Richardson racing back to his mother's house.

Paul could have talked openly about what he had witnessed that morning, it became a topic of conversation, allowing both the Lloyd's man and the police to have traced Paul later that night. Ditto Charles Cross.

[The Baron]

but I'm personally convinced something else was going on. I suspect the police initially looked at Paul, and perhaps Cross

This is something I personally am sure of too, specially Cross who contradicted a policeman at the inquest in front of the the coroner and all the jury and policemen there, no way in hell the police would not look at him, if this is not a red flag, and the police didn't look at Cross and Paul, then where else would they look, the lechmerians want us to believe those were imbecile detectives, don't know the basic of their job.

And that makes the idea that Cross went killing again after only 5 days of his problematic testimony unbelievable, he wouldn't have known if he was being watched by the police or not.



The Baron

[drstrange169]

A telling piece of information from Abberline at Saturday's inquest,

"This being the whole of the evidence to be taken that day, Inspector Abberline asked for an adjournment of some length, as certain things were coming to the knowledge of the police, and they wished for time to make inquiries."

So what was the only new evidence produced on the following Monday?

Not the slaughtermen as Baxter specifically asked for them to appear on the Monday,

"The coroner replied that he should like to hear on Monday the two butchers who had been referred to ..."

Not the husband as the jury specially asked for him,

"A juryman - Can we have the husband? Inspector Abberline - Yes, sir."

That just leaves Cross, Paul and Mizen as the "certain things (that) were coming to the knowledge of the police ... they wished for time to make inquiries."

[The Baron]

Swanson:

"enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surrounding suspicion was cast in statements made to police"


The Baron

[The Baron]

Walter Dew:

"All this was afterwards told in evidence by the carman. It never had the corroboration of the other man. The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so.

Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police?"


And said about Cross:

"Thoroughly honest man"


Both Cross and Paul were investigated thoroughly by the police.


"Those were wretched days for me. The hunt became an obsession. I spent long, long hours on duty, only to return home worn out but sleepless.

Night after night I tossed about on my bed seeing again and again the terrible sights I had witnessed. In this I was not alone. There were dozens of other police officers whose lives Jack the Ripper had made scarcely worth living."



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

Walter Dew:

"All this was afterwards told in evidence by the carman. It never had the corroboration of the other man. The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so.

Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police?"


And said about Cross:

"Thoroughly honest man"

So Walter was saying Cross was a stand up, good bloke and Robert Paul a shady b'stard?

[The Baron]

So Walter was saying Cross was a stand up, good bloke and Robert Paul a shady b'stard?

That shows the detectives at the time were not the imbecile type Lechmerians trying to advertising.

They will notice any red flag and will investigate thoroughly.


The Baron

[Geddy2112]

That shows the detectives at the time were not the imbecile type Lechmerians trying to advertising.

They will notice any red flag and will investigate thoroughly.

Well for me they did not have the advances in technology like CCTV, DNA, blood typing and finger prints like we do so no doubt they would have been spot on in the actual methods they did have.
I still say Paul was more shady than Cross for sure...